A report came out this morning in which it was argued that a 25% renewable energy target for 2020 would in fact financially harm consumers less than business as usual, and would create jobs, contrary to popular belief.

The Minister for the Environment (apparently) Malcolm Turnbull was predictably playing down the report’s conclusions and at one point addressed the difference in current price between green energy and coal. Except, when he was due to say ‘coal’, he paused, um‘d and ah‘d a couple of times, then came out with this gem.

Well, in theory, anyway.
In reality it’s hard to find a policy that has come from any Environment Minister in this entire government who has considered the welfare of the environment over industry. I think I alluded back here to the previous Minister, whose department in fact oversaw both Industry and Environment.
Hey, I thought of a new slogan for the government: Where “Conflict of Interest” is Just Part of the Job.

Jangari
I await a viable alterative to coal because there has been none found as yet ,especially as those of the Green or leftist persuasion are unwilling to accept anything that is associated with Uranium…

Iain, I didn’t really want to get into it here as I’m trying to keep my blog a nonsense-free area, but since you asked:
We use way too much energy as it is, it is wasteful. Reducing our usage will not damage the economy any more than anything else, that is a scare-campaign perpetuated by the coal-miners and electricity producers designed to ensure people only use more power.

Australia is very very well equipped with a vast array of renewable sources of energy; most urban users’ needs (given appropriate reduction in use) will be satisfied by a set of solar panels, which will also pump surplus energy back into the grid. Wind also has its place, as does geothermal. Geothermal is probably most applicable for baseload, naturally. There are plenty of others.

If such a diverse portfolio of energy sources still offends you fails to meet the energy requirements of greedy Australians with central heating, air-conditioning all year round and a plasma screen in every room, then I, for one, would be willing to concede the option of small coal-fired power plants to take up the slack, but the slack would not be too large.

As for nuclear, well, it’s only good for the environment if you subscribe to the reductivist point of view that carbon dioxide is synonymous with bad, and that therefore anything not carbon dioxide is not bad. It’s a silly way to think about things. Nuclear will never be free of the waste problem, no matter how much you spend on it. Moreover, to use a favourite piece of Howard’s logic, the more you factor in the cost of waste disposal, obviously the more viable renewable energy sources are going to become.

Finally, geosequestration, carbon capture. Well, it’s unproven, untested, expensive and potentially very dangerous. But if all those facts can be overcome, then it would have its rightful place in my grand plan, in mitigating the inevitable carbon emissions from the small number (maximum of say, 4) of coal-fired plants that remain.

Let’s not forget that most energy is consumed by industry, specifically, the aluminium industry, which enjoys significantly reduced prices artificially. In fact the entire country enjoys energy rates significantly lower than the world average. If we were all made to pay realistic rates, I’d hazard a guess that the problem of reduction would mostly sort itself out.

Damn it Aidhoss, you can’t let Iain push your buttons like that! It’s just what he wants!
Cooper if you were honest you would admit that every one who posts a comment, at any blog, even you, does so to illicit a response.
Jangari
The question that comes to mind about your solution is just what sort of reduction in energy use are you advocating here? I hope for the sake of your own credibility that it is not the 80% that has been mentioned by the Greens.
I think that you don’t understand what is meant by base load generation other wise you would not be so certain that renewables of any sort could. as they say , “step up to the plate”.

The 80% (or 60% or whatever) pertains to carbon dioxide emissions, not necessarily to energy use, and I support a reduction of as much as we can possibly muster.
As I said, I would allow a small number, like, one in each state, of coal-fired power plants to satisfy baseload.
I do understand what baseload is, by the way, it is the tendency of coal-fired power producers to continue to run throughout the night when very few people are using grid electricity, because it is expensive to shut them off and then start them up again.
What this means is that at night, power simply runs through power lines continuously, losing a percentage for every metre of cable it goes through by resistance. I understand the need these days for energy to be available on-tap, which is why I don’t rule out coal-power, but restrict it heavily. So no, I’m not suggesting any single source of renewable energy can, as you say in a very American phrase, “step up to the plate”, but a varied energy portfolio, supplemented by small quantities of coal, is quite sufficient.

Have you read up about geothermal? I suspect not. here is a useful page from the ANU, and the wikipedia page has a list of external links to websites of geothermal projects around the world. SA is full of hot subterranean granite that is perfect for geothermal power production. The ANU page has all that.

Look, the idea that significant amounts of energy can only be produced by coal-fired power plants (or nuclear) is just not true. if you take in to account the necessary reduction in energy use, then the vast array of renewable energy sources can take over easily.
Yes, it is expensive, but only artificially. If energy in Australia were priced at international market value, renewables wouldn’t be as prohibitively expensive (not that they’re overly expensive, but proportionally, I mean). Moreover, renewables would be cheaper if the industry had significant support from government. Nothing outrageous, just as much as, say, geosequestration research gets from government.

Cooper: If you compare coal-fired with nuclear, then of course they both have waste issues. Nuclear has the insurmountable problem of spent fuel, while coal has the problem of gaseous carbon dioxide, which cannot be liquefied, and can only be solidified at very low temperatures (that’s what dry ice is). Sequestering carbon dioxide is a messy, costly and dangerous affair, and storing nuclear waste is just hideously difficult and outrageously expensive. Factoring in those costs means that putting a new, lightweight silicon solar panel on everyone’s roof is slightly more affordable and no less imperative.
Such solar panels, incidentally, are being developed by a Chinese man who was trained at UNSW and couldn’t get any funding for his research here. He is now developing the world’s most efficient and cheap solar panels due to China’s generous research funding (I can’t find a link for this but it was on Four Corners a few weeks ago).

Dammit, didn’t I say I didn’t want to get into this? This post was designed only to draw attention to a new political euphemism, not to get into fistycuffs about energy.
I will say one more thing though, in response to I hope for the sake of your own credibility that it is not the 80% that has been mentioned by the Greens. Well, my credibility is about as good as yours on this issue; neither of us are climate scientists or energy providers. I hope you’re not suggesting that anyone that sides with the Greens on this issue has no credibility, that, by extension, the Greens have no credibility. Because that would be playing the man and not the ball, and you assure me that you know better than that…

Aidhoss, I agree! Though I meant nuclear in the same context which you advocated coal.
I don’t think it’s better than solar or geothermal or any of those greener alternatives.

It seems to me a better option (within an energy system utilising other renewables, as you propose) than coal if your aim is to reduce carbon emissions by 60%-80%. The greater of two evils. Or does ‘conventional grid electricity’ win out?

On that note, how long before a new euphemism for nuclear is developed?

Yeah, I got the sense that you weren’t advocating nuclear as a replacement, that you were just raising it as an issue for discussion, which, by the way, is important. Nuclear should be discussed and investigated as an option, and similarly, it would be folly to not discuss and investigate renewables as another option. Cf, The government’s inquiry into nuclear for its costs while simultaneously rejecting any renewables outright.

It is a better option if you characterise carbon dioxide as categorically bad and therefore anything not emitting carbon must be good. This is not the case. Consider the environmental cost of drilling bores to deposit spent nuclear waste, as well as the transport from, say, Lucas Heights. Also consider the costs, both fiscally and environmentally, of decommissioning. Factor in the costs of building too, and at the end of the day you have a power-plant that only marginally covers its energy-debt. On top of all that you can still take into account all the carbon emitted during all those other necessary stages, all construction and transportation. Presumably the decommissioning would be powered by the nuclear power itself, so it involves less emissions.

I don’t presume to know that coal in small amounts supplementing a renewables-based grid would be better in an Australian context than small amounts of nuclear for the same purpose, it’s merely a hunch. We know that carbon dioxide has been around in the atmosphere for billions of years, so it must, in part, be manageable. I wouldn’t say the same for spent uranium fuel rods.

Euphemisms. Well, nuclear energy has provided a couple of good ones. Chernobyl was once called a ‘spontæneous energetic disassembly’. I think that all terms associated with nuclear already have too much a negative connotation to be used euphemistically, uranium, atomic, radioactive. The only thing I can think of would be ‘special-relativity inspired electricity’ or ‘Einsteinian power’. Would that take off, you think?

I still await an energy reduction target from you Jangari (emoticon censored)
Do you actually have any experience with alternative /renewable power systems? Because I actually do which is why I am less than enamoured with them.

I do understand what baseload is, by the way, it is the tendency of coal-fired power producers to continue to run throughout the night when very few people are using grid electricity, because it is expensive to shut them off and then start them up again.

Close, base load is the amount of power that has to be produces and supplied into the grid to ensure continuous supply and voltage. Too little and if too many toasters (for example) were turned on at once then there would be a voltage drop (a brown out) which can cause disastrous damage to equipment or even fires.

Iain, the ‘target’ refers to CO2 emissions, not energy consumption. Both are too high. As I’ve said multiple times in this thread, I think we should be reducing our carbon emissions by as much as possible. Managed carefully, 80% is possible.

As for energy use, as much reduction as possible would be best. It isn’t difficult to reduce your personal power consumption; I know it sounds flippant, but very simple things can cumulatively have a large impact, turning off lights in empty rooms, using air-con as least as possible (stop whining, plenty before you had to make do without air-con), and so on.

In our household we significantly reduced our water consumption over the past 6 months. We are now using less than half of the maximum per-person quota that will be introduced in south-east Queensland’s ‘draconian’ level-5 water restrictions. I don’t have any figures for our energy consumption, but I assume it’d also be considerably below average.

Jangari
I am well aware that the Greens refer to a CO2 reduction target but that was not my question to you. And you will not be surprised to find that our household is frugal with our energy consumption we have no air conditioning , we do not run unnecessary lights ect either.
With regard to water I have lived in houses with their own tanks for the last twenty years. So you are just learning to be frugal with precious water in a way that is an ingrained way of life to my family..

Well, it’s good to hear that. Clearly then, you are conscious of the need for conservation? Why should it be unreasonable to commit to a reduction in energy consumption? And as much as you are a climate change sceptic, isn’t it similarly not unreasonable to commit to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, even if it’s just to err on the side of caution? If, that is, we can achieve it within our means, by encouraging households to reduce their energy consumption.

Paradigmatically changing the infrastructure of Australia’s electricity grid is a step beyond that, but then we’re in the realm of serious economic overhaul, so I’ll leave that one ’til later.

When I was teaching in North Dakota my boss told me to write a little report making the school look good. One of the bragging points of the school plant was a recently installed heating system that worked entirely by coal fire. The cars in the parking lot were covered in soot and the paint jobs were being ruined. There was a constant cloud on the horizon (as a lot of coal was being burned all over the region). But because the school was saving money by switching away from natural gas I was told to refer to the coal furnace as an “alternative heat source.”

Alternative to what? Clean air? I felt dirty writing that report. Thank goodness I didn’t have to sign my name.

I find it staggering that a school having its own coal-fired heating system is a ‘bragging point’!

Different times, eh?

Brown coal (lignite) is another good euphemism. The symbolism of brown versus black implies that brown coal is less polluting, but in fact its brownness signifies that it hasn’t fully undergone decomposition from the organic matter. As a result, there is a much higher carbon to hydrogen ratio. Ergo, it emits more carbon per unit of energy of output than black coal.